Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits

[Liability]

5 out of 9 Justices determined that the First Amendment actually means what it says.

4 out of the 9 expressed deep concern that free speech has implications. And they are right. It does.

There are appropriate ways to deal with the concerns expressed by the dissenters. Stifling free speech is not one of them.

Bravo for the integrity shown by this slim majority!

You're a fucking idiot.

We don't have any free speech in this country you moron.

All they did is legalize bribery.

You are beyond clueless. You are retarded.

We have no free speech?

Then what the hell is all this discussion I see about a Supreme Court decision? if we have no free speech, we wouldn't be entitled to discuss a determination of THE GOVERNMENT.

Did somebody stop you from claiming that I was a "fucking idiot?" Seems to me I just read it, so it LOOKS like nobody stopped you from spewing your ignorance.

I have often been highly critical of President Obama and Dingy Harry Reid and Shrieker Pelousy, and lots of libs around these parts had been harshly (and irrationally) critical of our former President and Vice President. Nobody got arrested and nobody prevented any of us from sharing our views.

But to morons like you, "we have no free speech."

You clueless talking-point addicted dork.

 

[goldcatt]

good point !

people who work for or own shares of corporations can already contribute to political campaigns on their own.

if the corporation is the sum of the people than either these people should lose their individual rights to vote or these people should ALL do time behind bars when a corporation loses in court.

since that is not the case, and in fact corporation is a separate entity form the people who work for and/or own it - then it has NO human rights aside from the ones it needs to conduct business for which it was created.

Add in that the owners voluntarily seek out exactly that separate nature for their own personal benefit, and you see how artificial it really is.

I'm not anti-corporation. Incorporation serves an important purpose, and there are entire industries that would not be in existence without it. But it is an artificial entity separate from the individuals involved in it and always has been.

The matter has nothing to do with free speech.

Of course it does. Political speech is an individual right. A corporation, or a union for that matter, is not an individual and is and has always been separate from the individuals associated with it. The corporate entity itself is not entitled to the rights bestowed on it by the Court yesterday, all the blathering and tangents about wealth and the group of individuals aside.

It's a poorly written fiction of an opinion that misuses citations and skims over the fact of what a corporate entity really is, not to mention the reason we as individuals enjoy protected political speech. What's not to hate about it?

 

[Annie]

Add in that the owners voluntarily seek out exactly that separate nature for their own personal benefit, and you see how artificial it really is.

I'm not anti-corporation. Incorporation serves an important purpose, and there are entire industries that would not be in existence without it. But it is an artificial entity separate from the individuals involved in it and always has been.

The matter has nothing to do with free speech.

Of course it does. Political speech is an individual right. A corporation, or a union for that matter, is not an individual and is and has always been separate from the individuals associated with it. The corporate entity itself is not entitled to the rights bestowed on it by the Court yesterday, all the blathering and tangents about wealth and the group of individuals aside.

It's a poorly written fiction of an opinion that misuses citations and skims over the fact of what a corporate entity really is, not to mention the reason we as individuals enjoy protected political speech. What's not to hate about it?

Actually it was a poorly written law, struck down by the SCOTUS. Even the ACLU gets that.

 

[goldcatt]

The matter has nothing to do with free speech.

Of course it does. Political speech is an individual right. A corporation, or a union for that matter, is not an individual and is and has always been separate from the individuals associated with it. The corporate entity itself is not entitled to the rights bestowed on it by the Court yesterday, all the blathering and tangents about wealth and the group of individuals aside.

It's a poorly written fiction of an opinion that misuses citations and skims over the fact of what a corporate entity really is, not to mention the reason we as individuals enjoy protected political speech. What's not to hate about it?

Actually it was a poorly written law, struck down by the SCOTUS. Even the ACLU gets that.

The law was poorly written and needed to be gotten rid of. But if the Court had just, say, slightly expanded corporate speech it would have had a far different and more limited effect than expanding the individual right to political speech to corporate entities. There were several ways to go about striking down McCain-Feingold, why choose the most radical route possible?

 

[Intense]

Add in that the owners voluntarily seek out exactly that separate nature for their own personal benefit, and you see how artificial it really is.

I'm not anti-corporation. Incorporation serves an important purpose, and there are entire industries that would not be in existence without it. But it is an artificial entity separate from the individuals involved in it and always has been.

The matter has nothing to do with free speech.

Of course it does. Political speech is an individual right. A corporation, or a union for that matter, is not an individual and is and has always been separate from the individuals associated with it. The corporate entity itself is not entitled to the rights bestowed on it by the Court yesterday, all the blathering and tangents about wealth and the group of individuals aside.

It's a poorly written fiction of an opinion that misuses citations and skims over the fact of what a corporate entity really is, not to mention the reason we as individuals enjoy protected political speech. What's not to hate about it?

You could not be more wrong on the matter. If You were right, what is to stop Government from stopping or censoring Political Speech in Book or Print, that is produced Through Corporate Entities, Voice when carried over Corporate Provided and Maintained Airways, Internet, Any Public or Private Place that is Incorporated, under Corporate Control, or benefited by their funding? Your claim is beyond reason. Study The American Revolution. Freedom of Speech and The Press is Rooted in The Message, Content, Not the Source. You got off the elevator on the wrong floor. Find the Elevator.

 

[Annie]

Of course it does. Political speech is an individual right. A corporation, or a union for that matter, is not an individual and is and has always been separate from the individuals associated with it. The corporate entity itself is not entitled to the rights bestowed on it by the Court yesterday, all the blathering and tangents about wealth and the group of individuals aside.

It's a poorly written fiction of an opinion that misuses citations and skims over the fact of what a corporate entity really is, not to mention the reason we as individuals enjoy protected political speech. What's not to hate about it?

Actually it was a poorly written law, struck down by the SCOTUS. Even the ACLU gets that.

The law was poorly written and needed to be gotten rid of. But if the Court had just, say, slightly expanded corporate speech it would have had a far different and more limited effect than expanding the individual right to political speech to corporate entities. There were several ways to go about striking down McCain-Feingold, why choose the most radical route possible?

Because the law was more than a tad too confining. The legislature may rewrite the law, but my guess is they won't. Truth to tell, it opens the process up again. Right now the Unions probably would spend more in the next cycle, businesses are holding onto their money. Things will change, they always do.

In many ways I think this is right, McCain-Feingold was not the panacea most of us believed it would be, as it led to special interests finding ways around, whether the Swift Boat folks or their counterparts on the left.

 

[Intense]

The matter has nothing to do with free speech.

Of course it does. Political speech is an individual right. A corporation, or a union for that matter, is not an individual and is and has always been separate from the individuals associated with it. The corporate entity itself is not entitled to the rights bestowed on it by the Court yesterday, all the blathering and tangents about wealth and the group of individuals aside.

It's a poorly written fiction of an opinion that misuses citations and skims over the fact of what a corporate entity really is, not to mention the reason we as individuals enjoy protected political speech. What's not to hate about it?

Actually it was a poorly written law, struck down by the SCOTUS. Even the ACLU gets that.

The First Amendment could not be more clear.

 

[Liability]

Of course it does. Political speech is an individual right. A corporation, or a union for that matter, is not an individual and is and has always been separate from the individuals associated with it. The corporate entity itself is not entitled to the rights bestowed on it by the Court yesterday, all the blathering and tangents about wealth and the group of individuals aside.

It's a poorly written fiction of an opinion that misuses citations and skims over the fact of what a corporate entity really is, not to mention the reason we as individuals enjoy protected political speech. What's not to hate about it?

Actually it was a poorly written law, struck down by the SCOTUS. Even the ACLU gets that.

The First Amendment could not be more clear.

Holy crow. Sometimes, as things turn out, "no" means "no."

Who knew?

 

[Chris]

Of course it does. Political speech is an individual right. A corporation, or a union for that matter, is not an individual and is and has always been separate from the individuals associated with it. The corporate entity itself is not entitled to the rights bestowed on it by the Court yesterday, all the blathering and tangents about wealth and the group of individuals aside.

It's a poorly written fiction of an opinion that misuses citations and skims over the fact of what a corporate entity really is, not to mention the reason we as individuals enjoy protected political speech. What's not to hate about it?

Actually it was a poorly written law, struck down by the SCOTUS. Even the ACLU gets that.

The First Amendment could not be more clear.

And the bribery could not be more clear.

 

[Vast LWC]

Actually it was a poorly written law, struck down by the SCOTUS. Even the ACLU gets that.

Of course the ACLU would support this decision. That's their purpose, to support civil liberties.

Of course, now that the Court has determined that corporations are individual entities with the same rights, we can tax them like individual entities, using normal income tax brackets, as opposed to the non-taxes they are currently paying.

We can base this new tax status on whether they decide to engage in politics or not.

As discussed in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ndividual-then-it-must-be-taxed-that-way.html

 

[Borat]

Why do We keep making the same mistakes assuming that the Republic does fine on Auto-Pilot? It Doesn't.

why ? because that's what the corporate owned media and government tell us.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR3KwODDzeY"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR3KwODDzeY[/ame]

 

[Borat]

However, it's irrelevant unless you are going to argue that a group of people united for a common purpose have no right to speak. Are you saying that groups of people cant speak out on public policy issues and candidates they approve and disapprove?

and their common purpose is to make money. they have no other purpose in forming that group - nobody denies that - that is the very definition of corporation.

in that case the only thing a corporation should be allowed to say is " I WANT MORE MONEY ! "

According to Who?

What do you suppose is the purpose of creating corporations - to advance human rights ?

 

[Borat]

5 out of 9 Justices determined that the First Amendment actually means what it says.

4 out of the 9 expressed deep concern that free speech has implications. And they are right. It does.

There are appropriate ways to deal with the concerns expressed by the dissenters. Stifling free speech is not one of them.

Bravo for the integrity shown by this slim majority!

You're a fucking idiot.

We don't have any free speech in this country you moron.

All they did is legalize bribery.

You are beyond clueless. You are retarded.

We have no free speech?

Then what the hell is all this discussion I see about a Supreme Court decision? if we have no free speech, we wouldn't be entitled to discuss a determination of THE GOVERNMENT.

Did somebody stop you from claiming that I was a "fucking idiot?" Seems to me I just read it, so it LOOKS like nobody stopped you from spewing your ignorance.

I have often been highly critical of President Obama and Dingy Harry Reid and Shrieker Pelousy, and lots of libs around these parts had been harshly (and irrationally) critical of our former President and Vice President. Nobody got arrested and nobody prevented any of us from sharing our views.

But to morons like you, "we have no free speech."

You clueless talking-point addicted dork.

we do not have free speech.

free speech doesn't mean there are some things you can say. it doesn't mean you can sometimes criticize your government. it means you can say ANYTHING, ANYTIME, ANYWHERE. we don't have that.

i was recently banned from a forum for "hate speech" and before that i was banned from another forum for "promoting pedophilia" etc. you cannot protest in America WITHOUT A PERMIT to protest ( does that make sense to you ? )

and what the fuck is a "designated free speech zone" ? isn't that what the whole of America was supposed to be ?

instead of waking up and fighting for REAL free speech - like the right to protest ( outside the designated free speech zones ) the government WITHOUT A PERMIT that the government itself must give you - no instead of that you want to fight for the rights of the most ruthless, powerful, oppressive entities which are both non-human, fundamentally immoral and immortal.

 

[Yurt]

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

There is a difference between a company running its own ads giving their own opinion versus directly contributing to the party or candidate. Those restrictions were left in place.

What this boils down to is are corporations allowed to pay for ads to be aired that voice their opinion. I think any company doing so during an election would be especially careful of the messages they air, out of fear of backlash from their consumers.

i didnt' put the full text....

(e) Disbursements by foreign nationals for electioneering
communications. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly,
make any disbursement for an electioneering communication as defined in
11 CFR 100.29.

how do corps get around that?

They do as Toyota does, they Incorporate here, Airbus, Honda, you name it are all for the purposes of taxes and law are American companies. That is why Toyota here is called Toyota North America, which is an actual American company. The individuals in that company do not matter for the purpose of a company wishing to express its political desires here as long as there is no law that bars the company from doing so and given the recent decision it appears that "Free Speech" for companies when it comes to campaigns is the order of the day.

yet, in order to disperse funds for political speech, the law could require proof of no foreign ownership. for example, who are the majority shareholders. if you read scalia's concurrance, his issue is with chilling speech is in terms of assocating with others, not whether a corporation is foreign owned. and, IMO, the court did not even remotely address the issue. i wouldn't be surprised if someone brings this up.

i don't know if i am right, but it certaintly raises a novel theory and throws a monkey wrench into the ruling.

 

[Borat]

If You were right, what is to stop Government from stopping or censoring Political Speech in Book or Print, that is produced Through Corporate Entities, Voice when carried over Corporate Provided and Maintained Airways, Internet, Any Public or Private Place that is Incorporated, under Corporate Control, or benefited by their funding?

You got a point there ! We should get rid of corporate ownership of news media as well !

 

[Valerie]

I cant believe people are happy with corporations having more influence on an election than any voters.

I cant believe how upset you are that people actually have free speech

corporations aren't people.

I agree.


How is it freedom if the rich and powerful "voice" drowns out the will of the people?

 

[Valerie]

Corporations shouldn't HAVE freedom of speech. They aren't PEOPLE (notwithstanding that little legal fiction).

Congrats to Scalia and his guys... they sure now how to protect those corporate interests!

Little legal fiction?

No no.

Corporations ARE "persons" for some legal purposes. And although they get no vote in the ballot box, they DO HAVE and SHOULD HAVE the right to freedom of speech.

Furthermore, frankly, WE all should WANT to protect their right to say whateverthefuck they wish to "say."

Freedom of speech still exists aside from the regulated airwaves which should provide equal access to campaign speech.

The financial cost should not be prohibitive to freedom of speech for all.

 

[Valerie]

A day after the United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal government may not ban political spending by corporations or unions in candidate elections, officials across the country were rushing to cope with the fallout, as laws in 24 states were directly or indirectly called into question by the ruling.

“One day the Constitution of Colorado is the highest law of the state,” said Robert F. Williams, a law professor at Rutgers University. “The next day it’s wastepaper.”

The states that explicitly prohibit independent expenditures by unions and corporations will be most affected by the ruling. The decision, however, has consequences for all states, since they are now effectively prohibited from adopting restrictions on corporate and union spending on political campaigns.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Campaign Finance Has Consequences for States - NYTimes.com

 

[Valerie]

In his dissent to the 5-to-4 ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens highlighted the burden placed on states.

“The court operates with a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel when it strikes down one of Congress’s most significant efforts to regulate the role that corporations and unions play in electoral politics,” he wrote. “It compounds the offense by implicitly striking down a great many state laws as well."

 

[goldcatt]

The matter has nothing to do with free speech.

Of course it does. Political speech is an individual right. A corporation, or a union for that matter, is not an individual and is and has always been separate from the individuals associated with it. The corporate entity itself is not entitled to the rights bestowed on it by the Court yesterday, all the blathering and tangents about wealth and the group of individuals aside.

It's a poorly written fiction of an opinion that misuses citations and skims over the fact of what a corporate entity really is, not to mention the reason we as individuals enjoy protected political speech. What's not to hate about it?

You could not be more wrong on the matter. If You were right, what is to stop Government from stopping or censoring Political Speech in Book or Print, that is produced Through Corporate Entities, Voice when carried over Corporate Provided and Maintained Airways, Internet, Any Public or Private Place that is Incorporated, under Corporate Control, or benefited by their funding? Your claim is beyond reason. Study The American Revolution. Freedom of Speech and The Press is Rooted in The Message, Content, Not the Source. You got off the elevator on the wrong floor. Find the Elevator.

Yes, and who is the source of the message and content in a book or publication? The author, who is an individual or in the case of a collaboration, a group of individuals.

The corporation producing the book is the creator of the paper pages it is printed on, the ink for printing, the binding, the distribution, the marketing....but not the content. Even in the editing process the author has the final say. Sorry my friend, but that dog don't hunt.